-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 53
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Publish minutes of 2022-09-01 meeting #268
Conversation
Also fixed some timezone references (PST -> PDT)
Was #258 discussed at this meeting? I don't see #252 discussed at this meeting. Why @carlosjeurissen added label I see chrome and safari don't opposed to #267 . Why @Rob--W added label |
@hanguokai Thanks for closely following the meeting notes and processes in the group. #252 was discussed in the previous meeting (Aug 4, 2022), in which Chrome and Safari expressed being in favour. As for #267, neutral tags might also work here. @xeenon proposed to be able to tag issues with a neutral |
It wasn't part of the agenda, so it wasn't covered. I don't know if omission from the agenda by @xeenon was intentional.
This was dicussed during the previous meeting. Notes from that meeting are at The labels were recently added because they are new, see #244 for details on labels.
The "Resolution" comment in the meeting notes was added after we all reached consensus on closing the issue. |
Closing it is OK. But I'm talking about labels here, you could close it without "reject" labels.
In 2022-08-04-wecg.md, about #252 ,
Like millions of other Chromium issues, I think this sentence means this is a beginning and does not mean acceptance. In today meeting note, about #267 ,
I think this likes above sentence, that means you can add an issue too, but will not implement soon.
This is better than "accept" or "reject". I understand, from browser venders point of view, there are still a lot of important issues that remain unresolved. Therefore, it is often difficult to say whether it will be implemented or when it will be implemented. |
We've just renamed "accepted" to "supportive" to more closely match what we're intending.
In a similar vein, we've renamed "rejected" to the less strongly worded "opposed".
The meeting notes reflect what has been said in the meeting. Because it is a discussion, viewpoints can change after having expressed and processed the initial statements. In this specific example, we were initially indifferent/neutral, but after weighing the options we decided to oppose the feature request (elaborated in #267). |
Most of the discussion on this issue seems to be about how labels have been applied to issues rather than the minutes themselves. As such, I think it may be best to (1) move discussion of the labels themselves to issue #244 and (2) move discussion of a whether given label was correctly applied to that issue's comments. |
Generated from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QkwhEMtMS67JBUkl_WVPZ4lRSKoWcQNlLJSf_GwSXg8/edit using the tool and process from #105.
During this meeting we discussed or mentioned #260, #261, #262, #263, #264, #267, #244, #232, #242, #162.
I've also fixed some timezone references (PST -> PDT). Unfortunately, the everytimezone links were also off-by-one for many months, but they should be good now.